[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] virtio-net: Describe RSS using receive queue handle
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 05:07:51PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:46 PM > > > > > > > And it's still kind of complex and non-standard. E.g. what does > > > > \begin{lstlisting} > > > > le16 rq_handle; > > > > \end{lstlisting} > > > > mean exactly? Apparently nothing ... > > > > > > > Why nothing, it is referenced further down. > > > Did you suggest moving before using it? > > > It was just fine to provide a forward reference. > > > > because it does not say anything about the contents or the format. just some > > kind of integer. > > > Because it is an integer there is no need of a special format. > It does say about the content very clearly = vqn / 2; > But more below. > > > > > I feel what we keep there is really the virtqueue number itself. > > > > Just stored in this strage format. > > > > > > > > And all this talk about handles kind of seems to add yet another term to > > learn. > > > > Where in fact all it is, is just a different way to store vqn. > > > > > > > > So my idea was this: we say something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > \field{unclassified_queue} contains the virtqueue number of the > > > > receive queue to place unclassified packets in. > > > > \field{indirection_table} contains an array of virtqueue numbers of > > > > receive queues. > > > > > > > Above two lines are clearly confusing where virtqueue number describe in > > rest of the spec and above doesn't align to same notion. > > > > That's true. > > > > > So better to say field A contains the rq_handle and > > > > > > struct rq_handle { > > > le16 vqn_16_1: 15; > > > le16 reserved : 1; > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both \field{unclassified_queue} and \field{indirection_table} use > > > > the following format for the virtqueue numbers: > > > > \begin{lstlisting} > > > > struct rss_virtqueue_number { > > > It is really not any superior in term of cost of learning. > > > > > > > le16 vqn_16_1 : 15; /* Bits 16 to 1 of the virtqueue number */ > > > > le16 reserved : 1; /* Set to 0 */ > > > I like the structure and reserved bit that enables to claim one bit for some > > unknown future use. > > > > } > > > > \end{lstlisting} > > > > for example, a value of 3 corresponds to virtqueue number 6 and maps > > > > to receiveq4. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and then everywhere else we just say it keeps a vq number, we > > > > already explained it is using this format once no need to repeat that. > > > > > > > I just prefer to rename it to rq_handle ( or at least other than virtqueue > > number) to distinguish it from rest of the virtqueue number. > > > > Well first of all I really want to make it clear it's specific to RSS at least for now. > > So let's prefix with rss_. > Yes, rss_ prefix is good. > > > Maybe I'm wrong but I feel using up a completely new term for something very > > specific to RSS is a waste. > > We won't be able to use handle for something else without confusion. > > So how about just > > > > struct rss_rq { > > le16 vqn_16_1 : 15; /* Bits 16 to 1 of the virtqueue number */ > > le16 reserved : 1; /* Set to 0 */ > > }; > Rq is usually an object and here we want to just refer to its id/vqn/handle. > > Hence, I prefer rss_rq_handle {} or rss_rq_id{} for the structure name. > WDYT? _id is ok. But don't define it separately as a special object, it's just the format of indirection_table and unclassified_queue. IOW define at point of 1st use. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]